BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE notification dated 16-11-1982 under Annexure-A as well as the notification dated 27-1-1983 under Annexure-B are sought to be quashed in these writ petitions. Further relief sought is a direction to respondent-1 to fix the price of sugarcane with reference to requirements of sugarcane control Order, 1966 and for fixation of the price of levy sugar by taking into account all relevant factors including the escalations in costs over last year. ( 2 ) THE notification under Annexure-A was issued in exercise of the power conferred by clause 3 of the sugarcane (control) Order, 1966 based on consideration of various factors mentioned in sub-clause (i) thereof and this notification makes it clear that it is applicable for the sugar year 1982-83 ending 30-9-1983, Annexure-B is the sugar (price determination for 1982-83 production) Order, 1983. ( 3 ) UNDER the essential commodities Act, 1955, notifications dated 28-11-1974 and 11-7-1975 were issued under Section 3 (3-c ). The price of levy sugar was questioned in M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. And another v union of India and others, JT 1990{1) S. C. 462. In the said decision, the Supreme Court took a view that the doctrine of judicial review implies that the repository of power acts within the bounds of the power delegated and he does not abuse his power. He must act resonably and in good faith. It is not only sufficient that an instrument is intra vires the parent Act, but it must also be consistent with the constitutional principles. Where a question of law is at issue, the court may determine the tightness of the impugned decision on its own independent judgment. If the decision of the authority does not agree with that which the court considers to be the right one, the finding of !aw by the authority is liable to be upset. Where it is a finding of fact, the court examines only the reasonableness of the finding. In the said case it was observed that the impugned orders are undoubtedly based on an exhaustive study by experts. They are fully supported by the recommendations of the tariff commission in 1969 and 1973. Where it is a finding of fact, the court examines only the reasonableness of the finding. In the said case it was observed that the impugned orders are undoubtedly based on an exhaustive study by experts. They are fully supported by the recommendations of the tariff commission in 1969 and 1973. The conclusions reached by the central government in exercise of its statutory power are expert conclusions which are not shown to be either discriminatory or unreasonable or arbitrary or ultra vires and it was held that the materials brought to the notice of the court by the petitioners do not support the arguments at the bar that the central government has not applied its mind to the relevant questions to which they are expected to have regard in terms of the statute and it was further held that the sugar factories for the purpose of determining the price of sugar in terms of sub-section (3-c) should be grouped on the basis of their geographical location is a policy decision based on exhaustive expert conclusions. It was further held that price fixation is not within the province of the courts. Judicial function in respect of such matters is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions reached by the concerned authority. It is a matter of policy and planning for the central government to decide whether it would be, on adoption of a system of partial control, in the best economic interest of the sugar industry and the general public that the sugar factories are grouped together with reference to geographical cum-agro-economic factors for the purpose of determining the price of levy sugar. Sufficient power has been delegated to the central government to formulate and implement its policy decision by means of statutory instruments and executive orders. Whether the policy should be altered to divide the sugar industry into groups of units with similar cost characteristics with particular reference to recovery, duration. Size and age of the units and capital cost per tonne of output, without regard to their location, as recommended by the bicp, is again a matter for the central government to decide. What is best for the sugar industry and in what manner the policy should be formulated and implemented, bearing in mind the fundamental object of the statute, viz. What is best for the sugar industry and in what manner the policy should be formulated and implemented, bearing in mind the fundamental object of the statute, viz. , supply and equitable distribution of essential commodity at fair prices in the best interest of the general public, is a matter for decision exclusively within the province of the central government. Such matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review. It is important to remember that the division of the industry on a zonal basis for the purpose of price determination has been accepted without question by almost all the producers with the exception of a few like the petitioners. ( 4 ) IN union of India v cynamide India ltd. , ( AIR 1987 SC 1802 , is to be found the principle applicable to the facts of these cases in para 4 of page 1805 :-"we start with the observation, 'price-fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the court'. We concern ourselves neither with the policy nor with the rates. But we do not totally deny ourselves the jurisdiction to enquire into the question, in appropriate proceedings, whether relevant considerations have gone in arid irrelevant considerations kept out of the determination of the price. For example, if the legislature has decreed the pricing policy and prescribed the factors which should guide the determination of the price, we will, if necessary, enquire into the question whether the policy and the factors are present to the mind of the authorities specifying the price. But our examination will stop there. We will go no further. We will not deluge ourselves with more facts and figures. The assembling of the raw materials and the mechanics of price fixation are the concern of the executive and we leave it to them. And, we will not revaluate the considerations even if the prices are demonstrably injurious to some manufacturers or producers. The court will, of course, examine if there is any hostile discrimination. That is a different 'cup of tea' altogether. " ( 5 ) IN the instant cases what is in question is the fixation of the price of sugarcane and the price of sugar is obviously fixed on the price of the sugarcane. The court will, of course, examine if there is any hostile discrimination. That is a different 'cup of tea' altogether. " ( 5 ) IN the instant cases what is in question is the fixation of the price of sugarcane and the price of sugar is obviously fixed on the price of the sugarcane. ( 6 ) APART from the fact that the challenge in these writ petitions relates to the sugar year 1982-83, as observed by the Supreme Court, fixation of the price of sugarcane analogous to the fixation of price of sugar does not fall within the province of judicial review. It is not the case of the petitioners that in the fixation of the price, relevant considerations have been ignored and irrelevant considerations have been imported. The limits of judicial review in regard to economic policy being extremely limited in the facts and circumstances of the cases, \ do not see any valid ground for interfering with the notifications which are questioned in these writ petitions. These writ petitions therefore fail and are dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .